Comments on: Pensions Crisis

By: charlotte

charlotte — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:29:17 +0000

This is completely unrelated to housing. But if you want women to punch out more babies you have to get rid of a number of barriers to women having children. Housing is an important hurdle.
But partnering is also difficult. In the past Social pressure and the church ensured people married etc. Without that social pressure and with choice its not surprising that many men don’t wish to go down this path or not during the time when their female counterparts are fertile. Most women want babies but many don’t find they are in the circumstances that would allow them to have them. Government should make it easier for single women to have children.
There is a huge raft of fit elderly people who could be coopted to help with looking after the next generation.
Nay sayers would argue that children of single parents traditionally don’t do very well. Part of that must be due to the fact that they are the poorest in society and perhaps these children also face social exclusion due to taboos.
Still with large amounts of women tipped not to marry or have children at all I think opening up opportunities for single women might be in the nations best interest.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Macarnie

Macarnie — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:01:02 +0000

Psimon:If you are prepared to wait until the Barents Sea freezes permanently again , perhaps you may have a chance of hearing someone from ANY Government admit that they are scare witless to enforce a reasonable N.I. contribution which would enable a non-penurious pension.

A potless pension scheme is no good to anyone, specially when there is always the unfortunate few to consider as well.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Psimon

Psimon — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:21:46 +0000

So, when do you reckon They are they going to admit that National Insurance has absolutely nothing to do with our pensions or healthcare, then?
?

Psi

Rate This: 0 0

By: David M

David M — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:23:01 +0000

Thanks Mac. As a scientist, it is blindingly obvious that if you put x in, you can only get more than x (in real terms) out if something happens to either make x grow or by taking something from others.

I have a pension scheme thought my employment (though not an occupational pension). Fortunately most of the people who are part of the scheme are suitably intelligent that they can keep a reasonable control on costs and benefits, and understand the payback principle.

If I want to live on half my annual salary for 20 years, then I have to put aside a quarter of my salary every year for 40 years. It is not rocket science. One hopes the income from the investments will be more than the devaluation through inflation and management costs over the years. I consider the management costs to be what I have to pay to have someone take prudent financial decisions on my behalf with how that money should be most productive. Letting it work (providing the service of capital availability) is an appropriate mechanism for socially responsible investment, and I am not keen to have to actively manage a small (relatively) amount myself when there are other things to enjoy in life.

Then again, I was brought up to believe that living in debt is to be avoided where possible, so would rather do without the ‘latest and greatest’ than run up debts that would haunt me. I pity the current generation. They will be leaving school/university with few distinctive skills, into an overcrowded labour market for the skills they do have, and a great debt hanging round their necks. The housing market is now unaffordable as we create a new underclass who we will later be relying on to support us in our dotage. It used to be generation X, those born to families with no aspiration who themselves have no aspiration or hope, prozac’ed into docility in sink estates. Now we have a generation who cannot afford to leave home, who are dependent on welfare, whether it be from the family or from the state, and it becomes impossible for the young person in the street to be self sufficient, to have any form of self-esteem, to feel that they can do anything.

Life could almost get too depressing.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Steve Hemingway

Steve Hemingway — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:24:33 +0000

Well done, Boris. How refreshing to see a politician prepared to go ‘off message’ once in a while.

One factor you didn’t mention about the unwillingness of the English to save for their old age other than through their houses is the fees charged by the pension industry. An article in the FT (Reduced pension costs can encourage savings >By James Sefton and Martin Weale, Published: August 19 2005) shows that “[the sum of the previous figures] implies our male pensioner has lost almost 40 per cent of his savings in charges.”

Rate This: 0 0

By: Richard Hughes

Richard Hughes — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:19:02 +0000

Dear Boris,
Hope this Email finds you fit and well.
Just read your essay on House Prices and Pensions. Did you consider the residents of Henley on Thames before writing this? You quite rightly consider the youth and their attitude to pensions but have you considered the masses of people who did plan only to be sorely disappointed by government and employer.You neglected to mention Equitable Life (and the FSA) as a huge deterrent to anybody thinking of giving their hard earned cash to a Pension Company. Not only did this bunch of incompetent liars (who probably live in Henley on Thames) take our money under false pretenses they were aided and assisted by the legislation which said they could dock what they like in penalty fees for those disgruntled enough to want their money back before it was spirited away. The Law Lords (who probably live in Henley on Thames) gave their simplistic judgment saying they could rob Peter (non GAR policy holders) to pay Paul (GAR Policy Holders) without actually considering whether Peter had enough money to give to Paul which he hadn’t. So not only did my savings go down the pan , my pension went with it.
As long as I have to relinquish control of what is left of my hard earned cash if I “invest” it in a pension which is to be returned to me as an annuity then
F O R G E T I T!.

Now getting back to house prices.
Am I thick or something cos I just cannot comprehend what Gordon Brown has in mind in allowing anybody to have a property based pension fund. I thought Norman Lamont (don’t know where he lives) was bad (VAT on heating) but this is insanity and is judged so by all those except those who intend to take full advantage of it. It will divert tons and tons of cash away from economic investment and distort the property market beyond recognition. Maybe he is relying on the increase in Stamp Duty and Inheritance Tax this will bring which should be considerable from the residents of Henley on Thames.

Did you go to Georgie Best’s funeral?

best regards,
Richard Hughes.

P.S. Hope you get a position in David Cameron’s Shadow Cabinet (maybe Shadow Chancellor) !!!!!!

Rate This: 0 0

By: Jack Ramsey

Jack Ramsey — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:19:38 +0000

Psimon

I agree that the homelessness problem is pretty much a scandal. When John Locke talked about the state of nature it was one where, from memory, each could take as much as he wanted as long as he left enough so that others could do so. Clearly we’re running out of supplies so the good doctor might feel that something needs to be done.

However every time we wnat to restrict something to a section of the population it threatens to create a lawyers paradise unless the criterion is fairly simple – e.g. age. How do you define a ‘local’? What happens to young workers who want to move into a new area where their skills are desperately needed?

The left of the Labour Party won’t be too worried about that of course. As long as there is plenty of work for lawyers, a chance to increase the payroll vote with new officials and there is a chance of doing down the bloated capitalists, then let class war rage!

But perhaps this is an opportunity for the Conservative Party to show how, whilst maintaining a general free market position, they are unideological enough to flexibly respond to problems affecting our fellow citizens with a view to minimising suffering (in Karl Popper’s words – well not all of them, just the last two!).

Rate This: 0 0

By: Psimon

Psimon — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:23:09 +0000

David Russell:

With 500,000 homeless people in this country, should people REALLY have “second homes”?

Good idea on the quick-sale tax…i’ll have to do some sums.

As I mentioned earlier, i’d also like to see a tax that “locals” could be exempted from. This should help stabilise house prices in rural communities, and allow locals to stay and work locally.

Although i do have a difficulty with calling for more taxes!!!
)

Rate This: 0 0

By: David Russell

David Russell — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:15:07 +0000

With regard to property prices, most of the current problems (which in turn cause the pension problems because the money people would normally be saving into a pension goes on the mortgage) are caused by parasitic property developers, and can therefore be solved with a simple solution: anyone who sells on a house within 18 months of buying it must pay 40% of the sale price in tax. That way people buying second homes aren’t penalised, but the people causing the price inflation are.

Rate This: 0 0

By: markgamon

markgamon — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:29:14 +0000

I notice you don’t actually offer a SOLUTION to any of this, Boris. But bravo for saying it.

Rate This: 0 0